The wave of anger and indignation sweeping the US in response to George Floyd’s death at the hands of a Minneapolis policeman exposes the myriad contradictions of US society.
With a presidential election less than six months away, the nation is gripped by despair and violent polarization. Yet, through the triple crisis of COVID-19, economic depression, mass protests and rioting there are enormous potential opportunities.
Since the US ceased to be a middle-class society, starting in the early 1980s, it has been incapable of thriving. Without a full-fledged welfare state, it has consistently failed to adapt to a fundamental shift in its founding paradigm.
Its Athenian-inspired political system was built for a society that treated everyone within the circle of enfranchisement as roughly equal, while excluding many others whom it deemed “less equal” (to borrow from George Orwell’s biting description of Bolshevism). The out-groups included women, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and many others.
As a result of these founding conditions, the US political system has long proved ill-equipped to retool its safety net, let alone its broader social contract.
To take the most recent example, consider then-US president Barack Obama’s attempts to fix the country’s deeply flawed and dysfunctional healthcare system.
Although the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, it contained many loopholes and half-measures, and has since been systematically undermined by US President Donald Trump’s administration.
Race is a central flashpoint in the US’ political evolution. Racial disparities have always underscored why the social contract needs to be expanded to beyond the fully employed white males of yesteryear.
However, the persistence of these disparities indicates that there are immense hurdles standing in the way of change.
Trump’s cynical effort to stoke racial resentment in response to the current protests is emblematic of the deeper problem. So, too, was the Democratic Party’s primary, which quickly winnowed out all candidates of color.
Race is a key factor not just in demands for reparations for slavery, but also in debates about universal health insurance and childcare, tuition-free public higher education, the minimum wage, immigration, gun control and Electoral College reform.
All of these issues touch on the fundamental question at the heart of the US’ political identity: Can the country’s original sin (slavery, followed by Jim Crow) be expiated without a proper welfare state?
The outpouring of frustration and anger following Floyd’s death has once again brought these questions into sharper focus.
Over the past year, polls have consistently shown that Americans support proposals to expand the safety net, tighten gun control and provide tuition-free college. They also increasingly accept that African Americans continue to bear the costs of systemic racism, from red-lining of neighborhoods and workplace discrimination to mass incarceration and abuse at the hands of police.
The current explosion of rage would solidify these shifts in sentiment, whatever the electoral consequences.
The same is true of the COVID-19 pandemic and the broader economic collapse. The racial and socioeconomic disparities revealed by both crises have led political leaders, experts and commentators from left to moderate right to agree that the US’ safety net is in tatters.
From insufficient testing and inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment to the disproportionately higher mortality rate among African Americans, the pandemic has laid bare the weaknesses of the US healthcare system.
At the same time, the economic debacle has highlighted the shortcomings of US unemployment insurance and other social programs, as well as a lack of coordination between federal, state and local governments.
Just as the pandemic has demonstrated the efficiency of the German, Scandinavian and even French safety nets, it has exposed the gaping holes in the US system.
Owing to the triple crisis posed by the pandemic, depression and civil unrest, there is a growing awareness among Democrats that beating Trump in November will not be enough.
The focus groups that Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, has set up, and his campaign’s ongoing discussions with potential running mates, all point to a realization that the crisis is even deeper than originally anticipated, and would require radical change.
Biden might not be the ideal candidate to mobilize and excite young black and Hispanic voters, but he is certainly capable of leading the kind of coalition needed to defeat Trump and launch a New Deal-like overhaul of US social, economic and political structures.
Americans might not want “socialism,” but they will no longer be content with a “return to normalcy” (Biden’s primary-season slogan, which he would have to discard).
Former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s aphorism about not letting a good crisis go to waste is relevant once again. With the COVID-19 death toll above 100,000, 40 million unemployed and another black man killed by a white cop, the US’ crises are multiplying.
For now, the country is beset not just by protests and rioting over police abuses, but also by a resurgent white supremacist “alt-right.” The underlying crises would come to a head politically on election day.
Not since 1932 has the US been more in need of radical change and sound leadership.
Jorge Castaneda, a former foreign minister of Mexico, is a professor at New York University and author of the forthcoming America Through Foreign Eyes.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s